Thursday, July 20. 2017

Lately, some attention was drawn to a widespread problem with TLS certificates. Many people are accidentally publishing their private keys. Sometimes they are released as part of applications, in Github repositories or with common filenames on web servers.

If a private key is compromised, a certificate authority is obliged to revoke it. The Baseline Requirements – a set of rules that browsers and certificate authorities agreed upon – regulate this and say that in such a case a certificate authority shall revoke the key within 24 hours (Section 4.9.1.1 in the current Baseline Requirements 1.4.8). These rules exist despite the fact that revocation has various problems and doesn’t work very well, but that’s another topic.

I reported various key compromises to certificate authorities recently and while not all of them reacted in time, they eventually revoked all certificates belonging to the private keys. I wondered however how thorough they actually check the key compromises. Obviously one would expect that they cryptographically verify that an exposed private key really is the private key belonging to a certificate.

I registered two test domains at a provider that would allow me to hide my identity and not show up in the whois information. I then ordered test certificates from Symantec (via their brand RapidSSL) and Comodo. These are the biggest certificate authorities and they both offer short term test certificates for free. I then tried to trick them into revoking those certificates with a fake private key.

Forging a private key

To understand this we need to get a bit into the details of RSA keys. In essence a cryptographic key is just a set of numbers. For RSA a public key consists of a modulus (usually named N) and a public exponent (usually called e). You don’t have to understand their mathematical meaning, just keep in mind: They’re nothing more than numbers.

An RSA private key is also just numbers, but more of them. If you have heard any introductory RSA descriptions you may know that a private key consists of a private exponent (called d), but in practice it’s a bit more. Private keys usually contain the full public key (N, e), the private exponent (d) and several other values that are redundant, but they are useful to speed up certain things. But just keep in mind that a public key consists of two numbers and a private key is a public key plus some additional numbers. A certificate ultimately is just a public key with some additional information (like the host name that says for which web page it’s valid) signed by a certificate authority.

A naive check whether a private key belongs to a certificate could be done by extracting the public key parts of both the certificate and the private key for comparison. However it is quite obvious that this isn’t secure. An attacker could construct a private key that contains the public key of an existing certificate and the private key parts of some other, bogus key. Obviously such a fake key couldn’t be used and would only produce errors, but it would survive such a naive check.

I created such fake keys for bothdomains and uploaded them to Pastebin. If you want to create such fake keys on your own here’s a script. To make my report less suspicious I searched Pastebin for real, compromised private keys belonging to certificates. This again shows how problematic the leakage of private keys is: I easily found seven private keys for Comodo certificates and three for Symantec certificates, plus several more for other certificate authorities, which I also reported. These additional keys allowed me to make my report to Symantec and Comodo less suspicious: I could hide my fake key report within other legitimate reports about a key compromise.

Symantec revoked a certificate based on a forged private key

Comodo didn’t fall for it. They answered me that there is something wrong with this key. Symantec however answered me that they revoked all certificates – including the one with the fake private key.

No harm was done here, because the certificate was only issued for my own test domain. But I could’ve also fake private keys of other peoples' certificates. Very likely Symantec would have revoked them as well, causing downtimes for those sites. I even could’ve easily created a fake key belonging to Symantec’s own certificate.

The communication by Symantec with the domain owner was far from ideal. I first got a mail that they were unable to process my order. Then I got another mail about a “cancellation request”. They didn’t explain what really happened and that the revocation happened due to a key uploaded on Pastebin.

I then informed Symantec about the invalid key (from my “real” identity), claiming that I just noted there’s something wrong with it. At that point they should’ve been aware that they revoked the certificate in error. Then I contacted the support with my “domain owner” identity and asked why the certificate was revoked. The answer: “I wanted to inform you that your FreeSSL certificate was cancelled as during a log check it was determined that the private key was compromised.”

To summarize: Symantec never told the domain owner that the certificate was revoked due to a key leaked on Pastebin. I assume in all the other cases they also didn’t inform their customers. Thus they may have experienced a certificate revocation, but don’t know why. So they can’t learn and can’t improve their processes to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Also, Symantec still insisted to the domain owner that the key was compromised even after I already had informed them that the key was faulty.

How to check if a private key belongs to a certificate?

In case you wonder how you properly check whether a private key belongs to a certificate you may of course resort to a Google search. And this was fascinating – and scary – to me: I searched Google for “check if private key matches certificate”. I got plenty of instructions. Almost all of them were wrong. The first result is a page from SSLShopper. They recommend to compare the MD5 hash of the modulus. That they use MD5 is not the problem here, the problem is that this is a naive check only comparing parts of the public key. They even provide a form to check this. (That they ask you to put your private key into a form is a different issue on its own, but at least they have a warning about this and recommend to check locally.)

Going to Google results page two among some unrelated links we find more wrong instructions and tools from Symantec, SSL247 (“Symantec Specialist Partner Website Security” - they learned from the best) and some private blog. A documentation by Aspera (belonging to IBM) at least mentions that you can check the private key, but in an unrelated section of the document. Also we get more tools that ask you to upload your private key and then not properly check it from SSLChecker.com, the SSL Store (Symantec “Website Security Platinum Partner”), GlobeSSL (“in SSL we trust”) and - well - RapidSSL.

Documented Security Vulnerability in OpenSSL

So if people google for instructions they’ll almost inevitably end up with non-working instructions or tools. But what about other options? Let’s say we want to automate this and have a tool that verifies whether a certificate matches a private key using OpenSSL. We may end up finding that OpenSSL has a function x509_check_private_key() that can be used to “check the consistency of a private key with the public key in an X509 certificate or certificate request”. Sounds like exactly what we need, right?

Well, until you read the full docs and find out that it has a BUGS section: “The check_private_key functions don't check if k itself is indeed a private key or not. It merely compares the public materials (e.g. exponent and modulus of an RSA key) and/or key parameters (e.g. EC params of an EC key) of a key pair.”

I think this is a security vulnerability in OpenSSL (discussion with OpenSSL here). And that doesn’t change just because it’s a documented security vulnerability. Notably there are downstream consumers of this function that failed to copy that part of the documentation, see for example the corresponding PHP function (the limitation is however mentioned in a comment by a user).

So how do you really check whether a private key matches a certificate?

Ultimately there are two reliable ways to check whether a private key belongs to a certificate. One way is to check whether the various values of the private key are consistent and then check whether the public key matches. For example a private key contains values p and q that are the prime factors of the public modulus N. If you multiply them and compare them to N you can be sure that you have a legitimate private key. It’s one of the core properties of RSA that it’s secure based on the assumption that it’s not feasible to calculate p and q from N.

You can use OpenSSL to check the consistency of a private key:openssl rsa -in [privatekey] -check

For my forged keys it will tell you:RSA key error: n does not equal p q

As this is all quite complex due to OpenSSLs arcane command line interface I have put this all together in a script. You can pass a certificate and a private key, both in ASCII/PEM format, and it will do both checks.

Summary

Symantec did a major blunder by revoking a certificate based on completely forged evidence. There’s hardly any excuse for this and it indicates that they operate a certificate authority without a proper understanding of the cryptographic background.

Apart from that the problem of checking whether a private key and certificate match seems to be largely documented wrong. Plenty of erroneous guides and tools may cause others to fall for the same trap.

Friday, December 11. 2015

Important notice: After I published this text Adam Langley pointed out that a major assumption is wrong: Android 2.2 actually has no problems with SHA256-signed certificates. I checked this myself and in an emulated Android 2.2 instance I was able to connect to a site with a SHA256-signed certificate. I apologize for that error, I trusted the Cloudflare blog post on that. This whole text was written with that assumption in mind, so it's hard to change without rewriting it from scratch. I have marked the parts that are likely to be questioned. Most of it is still true and Android 2 has a problematic TLS stack (no SNI), but the specific claim regarding SHA256-certificates seems wrong.

This week both Cloudflare and Facebook announced that they want to delay the deprecation of certificates signed with the SHA1 algorithm. This spurred some hot debates whether or not this is a good idea – with two seemingly good causes: On the one side people want to improve security, on the other side access to webpages should remain possible for users of old devices, many of them living in poor countries. I want to give some background on the issue and ask why that unfortunate situation happened in the first place, because I think it highlights some of the most important challenges in the TLS space and more generally in IT security.

SHA1 broken since 2005

The SHA1 algorithm is a cryptographic hash algorithm and it has been know for quite some time that its security isn't great. In 2005 the Chinese researcher Wang Xiaoyun published an attack that would allow to create a collision for SHA1. The attack wasn't practically tested, because it is quite expensive to do so, but it was clear that a financially powerful adversary would be able to perform such an attack. A year before the even older hash function MD5 was broken practically, in 2008 this led to a practical attack against the issuance of TLS certificates. In the past years browsers pushed for the deprecation of SHA1 certificates and it was agreed that starting January 2016 no more certificates signed with SHA1 must be issued, instead the stronger algorithm SHA256 should be used. Many felt this was already far too late, given that it's been ten years since we knew that SHA1 is broken.

A few weeks before the SHA1 deadline Cloudflare and Facebook now question this deprecation plan. They have some strong arguments. According to Cloudflare's numbers there is still a significant number of users that use browsers without support for SHA256-certificates. And those users are primarily in relatively poor, repressive or war-ridden countries. The top three on the list are China, Cameroon and Yemen. Their argument, which is hard to argue with, is that cutting of SHA1 support will primarily affect the poorest users.

Cloudflare and Facebook propose a new mechanism to get legacy validated certificates. These certificates should only be issued to site operators that will use a technology to separate users based on their TLS handshake and only show the SHA1 certificate to those that use an older browser. Facebook already published the code to do that, Cloudflare also announced that they will release the code of their implementation. Right now it's still possible to get SHA1 certificates, therefore those companies could just register them now and use them for three years to come. Asking for this legacy validation process indicates that Cloudflare and Facebook don't see this as a short-term workaround, instead they seem to expect that this will be a solution they use for years to come, without any decided end date.

It's a tough question whether or not this is a good idea. But I want to ask a different question: Why do we have this problem in the first place, why is it hard to fix and what can we do to prevent similar things from happening in the future? One thing is remarkable about this problem: It's a software problem. In theory software can be patched and the solution to a software problem is to update the software. So why can't we just provide updates and get rid of these legacy problems?

Windows XP and Android Froyo

According to Cloudflare there are two main reason why so many users can't use sites with SHA256 certificates: Windows XP and old versions of Android (SHA256 support was added in Android 2.3, so this affects mostly Android 2.2 aka Froyo). We all know that Windows XP shouldn't be used any more, that its support has ended in 2014. But that clearly clashes with realities. People continue using old systems and Windows XP is still alive in many countries, especially in China.

But I'm inclined to say that Windows XP is probably the smaller problem here. With Service Pack 3 Windows XP introduced support for SHA256 certificates. By using an alternative browser (Firefox is still supported on Windows XP if you install SP3) it is even possible to have a relatively safe browsing experience. I'm not saying that I recommend it, but given the circumstances advising people how to update their machines and to install an alternative browser can party provide a way to reduce the reliance on broken algorithms.

The Updatability Gap

But the problem with Android is much, much worse, and I think this brings us to probably the biggest problem in IT security we have today. For years one of the most important messages to users in IT security was: Keep your software up to date. But at the same time the industry has created new software ecosystems where very often that just isn't an option.

In the Android case Google says that it's the responsibility of device vendors and carriers to deliver security updates. The dismal reality is that in most cases they just don't do that. But even if device vendors are willing to provide updates it usually only happens for a very short time frame. Google only supports the latest two Android major versions. For them Android 2.2 is ancient history, but for a significant portion of users it is still the operating system they use.

What we have here is a huge gap between the time frame devices get security updates and the time frame users use these devices. And pretty much everything tells us that the vendors in the Internet of Things ignore these problems even more and the updatability gap will become larger. Many became accustomed to the idea that phones get only used for a year, but it's hard to imagine how that's going to work for a fridge. What's worse: Whether you look at phones or other devices, they often actively try to prevent users from replacing the software on their own.

This is a hard problem to tackle, but it's probably the biggest problem IT security is facing in the upcoming years. We need to get a working concept for updates – a concept that matches the real world use of devices.

Substandard TLS implementations

But there's another part of the SHA1 deprecation story. As I wrote above since 2005 it was clear that SHA1 needs to go away. That was three years before Android was even published. But in 2010 Android still wasn't capable of supporting SHA256 certificates. Google has to take a large part of the blame here. While these days they are at the forefront of deploying high quality and up to date TLS stacks, they shipped a substandard and outdated TLS implementation in Android 2. (Another problem is that all Android 2 versions don't support Server Name Indication, a technology that allows to use different certificates for different hosts on one IP address.)

This is not the first such problem we are facing. With the POODLE vulnerability it became clear that the old SSL version 3 is broken beyond repair and it's impossible to use it safely. The only option was to deprecate it. However doing so was painful, because a lot of devices out there didn't support better protocols. The successor protocol TLS 1.0 (SSL/TLS versions are confusing, I know) was released in 1999. But the problem wasn't that people were using devices older than 1999. The problem was that many vendors shipped devices and software that only supported SSLv3 in recent years.

One example was Windows Phone 7. In 2011 this was the operating system on Microsoft's and Nokia's flagship product, the Lumia 800. Its mail client is unable to connect to servers not supporting SSLv3. It is just inexcusable that in 2011 Microsoft shipped a product which only supported a protocol that was deprecated 12 years earlier. It's even more inexcusable that they refused to fix it later, because it only came to light when Windows Phone 7 was already out of support.

The takeaway from this is that sloppiness from the past can bite you many years later. And this is what we're seeing with Android 2.2 now.

But you might think given these experiences this has stopped today. It hasn't. The largest deployer of substandard TLS implementations these days is Apple. Up until recently (before El Capitan) Safari on OS X didn't support any authenticated encryption cipher suites with AES-GCM and relied purely on the CBC block mode. The CBC cipher suites are a hot candidate for the next deprecation plan, because 2013 the http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/Lucky13.html Lucky 13 attack has shown that they are really hard to implement safely. The situation for applications other than the browser (Mail etc.) is even worse on Apple devices. They only support the long deprecated TLS 1.0 protocol – and that's still the case on their latest systems.

There is widespread agreement in the TLS and cryptography community that the only really safe way to use TLS these days is TLS 1.2 with a cipher suite using forward secrecy and authenticated encryption (AES-GCM is the only standardized option for that right now, however ChaCha20/Poly1304 will come soon).

Conclusions

For the specific case of the SHA1 deprecation I would propose the following: Cloudflare and Facebook should go ahead with their handshake workaround for the next years, as long as their current certificates are valid. But this time should be used to find solutions. Reach out to those users visiting your sites and try to understand what could be done to fix the situation. For the Windows XP users this is relatively easy – help them updating their machines and preferably install another browser, most likely that'd be Firefox. For Android there is probably no easy solution, but we have some of the largest Internet companies involved here. Please seriously ask the question: Is it possible to retrofit Android 2.2 with a reasonable TLS stack? What ways are there to get that onto the devices? Is it possible to install a browser app with its own TLS stack on at least some of those devices? This probably doesn't work in most cases, because on many cheap phones there just isn't enough space to install large apps. In the long term I hope that the tech community will start tackling the updatability problem.

In the TLS space I think we need to make sure that no more substandard TLS deployments get shipped today. Point out the vendors that do so and pressure them to stop. It wasn't acceptable in 2010 to ship TLS with long-known problems and it isn't acceptable today.

It seems that Dell hasn't learned anything from the Superfish-scandal earlier this year: Laptops from the company come with a preinstalled root certificate that will be accepted by browsers. The private key is also installed on the system and has been published now. Therefore attackers can use Man in the Middle attacks against Dell users to show them manipulated HTTPS webpages or read their encrypted data.

The certificate, which is installed in the system's certificate store under the name "eDellRoot", gets installed by a software called Dell Foundation Services. This software is still available on Dell's webpage. According to the somewhat unclear description from Dell it is used to provide "foundational services facilitating customer serviceability, messaging and support functions".

The private key of this certificate is marked as non-exportable in the Windows certificate store. However this provides no real protection, there are Tools to export such non-exportable certificate keys. A user of the plattform Reddit has posted the Key there.

For users of the affected Laptops this is a severe security risk. Every attacker can use this root certificate to create valid certificates for arbitrary web pages. Even HTTP Public Key Pinning (HPKP) does not protect against such attacks, because browser vendors allow locally installed certificates to override the key pinning protection. This is a compromise in the implementation that allows the operation of so-called TLS interception proxies.

I was made aware of this issue a while ago by Kristof Mattei. We asked Dell for a statement three weeks ago and didn't get any answer.

It is currently unclear which purpose this certificate served. However it seems unliklely that it was placed there deliberately for surveillance purposes. In that case Dell wouldn't have installed the private key on the system.

Affected are only users that use browsers or other applications that use the system's certificate store. Among the common Windows browsers this affects the Internet Explorer, Edge and Chrome. Not affected are Firefox-users, Mozilla's browser has its own certificate store.

Users of Dell laptops can check if they are affected with an online check tool. Affected users should immediately remove the certificate in the Windows certificate manager. The certificate manager can be started by clicking "Start" and typing in "certmgr.msc". The "eDellRoot" certificate can be found under "Trusted Root Certificate Authorities". You also need to remove the file Dell.Foundation.Agent.Plugins.eDell.dll, Dell has now posted an instruction and a removal tool.

This incident is almost identical with the Superfish-incident. Earlier this year it became public that Lenovo had preinstalled a software called Superfish on its Laptops. Superfish intercepts HTTPS-connections to inject ads. It used a root certificate for that and the corresponding private key was part of the software. After that incident several other programs with the same vulnerability were identified, they all used a software module called Komodia. Similar vulnerabilities were found in other software products, for example in Privdog and in the ad blocker Adguard.

I just found out that there is a second root certificate installed with some Dell software that causes exactly the same issue. It is named DSDTestProvider and comes with a software called Dell System Detect. Unlike the Dell Foundations Services this one does not need a Dell computer to be installed, therefore it was trivial to extract the certificate and the private key. My online test now checks both certificates. This new certificate is not covered by Dell's removal instructions yet.

Tuesday, April 29. 2014

A number of people seem to be confused how to correctly install certificate chains for TLS servers. This happens quite often on HTTPS sites and to avoid having to explain things again and again I thought I'd write up something so I can refer to it. A few days ago flattr.com had a missing certificate chain (fixed now after I reported it) and various pages from the Chaos Computer Club have no certificate chain (not the main page, but several subdomains like events.ccc.de and frab.cccv.de). I've tried countless times to tell someone, but the problem persists. Maybe someone in charge will read this and fix it.

Web browsers ship a list of certificate authorities (CAs) that are allowed to issue certificates for HTTPS websites. The whole system is inherently problematic, but right now that's not the point I want to talk about. Most of the time, people don't get their certificate from one of the root CAs but instead from a subordinate CA. Every CA is allowed to have unlimited numbers of sub CAs.

The correct way of delivering a certificate issued by a sub CA is to deliver both the host certificate and the certificate of the sub CA. This is neccesarry so the browser can check the complete chain from the root to the host. For example if you buy your certificate from RapidSSL then the RapidSSL cert is not in the browser. However, the RapidSSL certificate is signed by GeoTrust and that is in your browser. So if your HTTPS website delivers both its own certificate by RapidSSL and the RapidSSL certificate, the browser can validate the whole chain.

However, and here comes the tricky part: If you forget to deliver the chain certificate you often won't notice. The reason is that browsers cache chain certificates. In our example above if a user first visits a website with a certificate from RapidSSL and the correct chain the browser will already know the RapidSSL certificate. If the user then surfs to a page where the chain is missing the browser will still consider the certificate as valid. Such certificates with missing chain have been called transvalid, I think the term was first used by the EFF for their SSL Observatory.

Chromium with bogus error message on a transvalid certificate

Now the CCC uses certificates from CAcert.org. Two more issues pop up here that make things even more complicated. First of all, the root certificate of CAcert is not in browsers, users have to manually import it. But CAcert offers both their root (Class 1) and sub (Class 3) certificate on the same webpage and doesn't really tell users that they usually only have to import the root. So everyone who imports both certificates will see transvalid CAcert certificates as valid. The second issue that pops up is that browsers sometimes do weird things when it comes to certificate error messages. I have no idea why exactly this is happening, but if you have the CAcert root installed and use Chromium to surf to a page with a transvalid CAcert certificate, it'll warn you about a weak signature algorithm. This doesn't make any sense, I can only assume that it has something to do with the fact that the CAcert root is self-signed with MD5 (which isn't a security issue, because self-signatures don't really have any meaning, they're just there because X.509 doesn't allow certificates without a signature).

So how can you check if you have a transvalid certificate? One way is to use a fresh browser installation without anything cached. If you then surf to a page with a transvalid certificate, you'll get an error message (however, as we've just seen, not neccessarily a meaningful one). An easier way is to use the SSL Test from Qualys. It has a line "Chain issues" and if it shows "None" you're fine. If it shows "Incomplete" then your certificate is most likely transvalid. If it shows anything else you have other things to look after (a common issues is that people unneccesarily send the root certificate, which doesn't cause issues but may make things slower). The Qualys test test will tell you all kinds of other things about your TLS configuration. If it tells you something is insecure you should probably look after that, too.

Saturday, January 19. 2013

Yesterday, we had a meeting at CAcert Berlin where I had a little talk about how to almost-perfectly configure your HTTPS server. Motivation for that was the very nice Qualys SSL Server test, which can remote-check your SSL configuration and tell you a bunch of things about it.

While playing with that, I created a test setup which passes with 100 points in the Qualys test. However, you will hardly be able to access that page, which is mainly due to it's exclusive support for TLS 1.2. All major browsers fail. Someone from the audience told me that the iPhone browser was successfully able to access the page. To safe the reputation of free software, someone else found out that the Midori browser is also capable of accessing it. I've described what I did there on the page itself and you may also read it here via http.

Update: As people seem to find these browser issue interesting: It's been pointed out that the iPad Browser also works. Opera with TLS 1.2 enabled seems to work for some people, but not for me (maybe Windows-only). luakit and epiphany also work, but they don't check certificates at all, so that kind of doesn't count.

I had a short look and found some things noteworthy:
The page is SSL-only, any connection attempt with http will be forwarded to https. When I opened the page in firefox, I got a message that the certificate is not valid. That's obviously bad, although most people probably won't see this message.

What is wrong here is that an intermediate certificate is missing - we have a so-called transvalid certificate (the term "transvalid" has been used for it by the EFF SSL Observatory project). Firefox includes the root certificate from Go Daddy, but the certificate is signed by another certificate which itself is signed by the root certificate. To make this work, one has to ship the so-called intermediate certificate when opening an SSL connection.

The reason why most people won't see this warning and why it probably went unnoticed is that browsers remember intermediate certificates. If someone ever was on a webpage which uses the Go Daddy intermediate certificate, he won't see this warning. I saw it because I usually don't use Firefox and it had a rather fresh configuration.

There was another thing that bothered me: On top of the page, there's a line "Before submitting anything verify that the fingerprints of the SSL certificate match!" followed by a SHA-1 certificate fingerprint. Beside the fact that it's english on a german page, this is a rather ridiculous suggestion. Checking a fingerprint of an SSL connection against one you got through exactly that SSL connection is bogus. Checking a certificate fingerprint doesn't make any sense if you got it through a connection that was secured with that certificate. If checking a fingerprint should make sense, it has to come through a different channel. Beside that, nowhere is explained how a user should do that and what a fingerprint is at all. I doubt that this is of any help for the targetted audience by a whistleblower platform - it will probably only confuse people.

Both issues give me the impression that the people who designed OpenLeaks don't really know how SSL works - and that's not a good sign.

Thursday, April 21. 2011

https is likely the most widely used cryptographic protocol. It's based on X.509 certificates. There's a living debate how useful this concept is at all, mainly through the interesting findings of the EFF SSL Observatory. But that won't be my point today.

Pretty much all webpage certificates use RSA and sadly, the vast majority still use insecure hash algorithms. But it is rarely known that the X.509 standards support a whole bunch of other public key algorithms.

I'd be very interested to get some feedback. If you happen to have some interesting OS/Browser combination, please import the root certificate and send me a screenshot where I can see how many green ticks there are (post a link to the screenshot in the commends or send it via email).

Saturday, February 26. 2011

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is running a fascinating project called the SSL Observatory. What they basically do is quite simple: They collected all SSL certificates they could get via https (by scanning all possible IPs), put them in a database and made statistics with them.

For an introduction, watch their talk at the 27C3 - it's worth it. For example, they found a couple of "Extended Validation"-Certificates that clearly violated the rules for extended validation, including one 512-bit EV-certificate.

The great thing is: They provide the full mysql database for download. I took the time to import the thing locally and am now able to run my own queries against it.

Let's show some examples: I'm interested in crypto algorithms used in the wild, so I wanted to know which are used in the wild at all. My query:

SELECT `Signature Algorithm`, count(*) FROM valid_certs GROUP BY `Signature Algorithm` ORDER BY count(*);

shows all signature algorithms used on the certificates.
And the result:

Nothing very surprising here. Seems nobody is using anything else than RSA. The most popular hash algorithm is SHA-1, followed by MD5. The transition to SHA-256 seems to go very slowly (btw., the most common argument I heared when asking CAs for SHA-256 certificates was that Windows XP before service pack 3 doesn't support that). The four MD2-certificates seem interesting, though even that old, it's still more secure than MD5 and provides a similar security margin as SHA-1, though support for it has been removed from a couple of security libraries some time ago.

This query was only for the valid certs, meaning they were signed by any browser-supported certificate authority. Now I run the same query on the all_certs table, which contains every cert, including expired, self-signed or otherwise invalid ones:

It seems quite some people are experimenting with DSA signatures. Interesting are the number of GOST-certificates. GOST was a set of cryptography standards by the former soviet union. Seems the number of people trying to use elliptic curves is really low (compared to the popularity they have and that if anyone cares for SSL performance, they may be a good catch). For the algorithms only showing numbers, 1.2.840.113549.1.1.10 is RSASSA-PSS (not detected by current openssl release versions), 1.3.6.1.4.1.5849.1.3.2 is also a GOST-variant (GOST3411withECGOST3410) and 1.2.840.113549.27.1.5 is unknown to google, so it must be something very special.